CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while OpenText is ranked #18 with an average rating of 8.3. SmartBear holds a 0.7% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 82% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

589 Views
449 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Read 17 OpenText UFT Digital Lab reviews

598 Views
339 Comparison Views

82% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT Digital Lab and CrossBrowserTesting compete in test automation and browser compatibility. CrossBrowserTesting has the upper hand due to its robust feature set and comprehensive testing capabilities, which make it a worthwhile investment for many businesses.

Features: OpenText UFT Digital Lab offers automated test features with strong integration capabilities, enhancing test coverage and efficiency. It supports integration with both HPE and non-HPE tools. Primary usage on real devices and supports emulators. CrossBrowserTesting stands out for its vast browser compatibility options, live testing features, and ability to test across real devices and browsers.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT Digital Lab could enhance its browser compatibility options and ease of deployment. Improving real-time testing features would also be beneficial. It could also benefit from lowering the initial setup requirements. CrossBrowserTesting could improve its user interface for better navigation. While support is already strong, further real-time communication channels could enhance user experience. Expanding device compatibility for live testing would be advantageous.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CrossBrowserTesting offers a user-friendly deployment model and commendable support, ensuring quick integration into workflows. OpenText UFT Digital Lab provides valuable support, yet its deployment process might require more technical inputs, potentially slowing down the integration.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT Digital Lab presents a competitive pricing model with a promising ROI but requires a higher initial investment. CrossBrowserTesting offers cost-effective solutions with quicker ROI due to lower setup costs and versatile testing solutions, making it more appealing from a financial perspective.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 846,617 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

28th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

18th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.7%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT Digital Lab is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison

Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic

Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems

The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.

Read full review

Robinson Caiado

Sales Leader at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation

It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."

"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."

"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."

"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."

"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."

"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."

"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."

"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."

"The product is easy to use."

"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."

Cons

"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."

"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."

"The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default."

"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."

"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."

"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

"The product could be more affordable."

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

23%

Financial Services Firm

20%

Government

12%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

21%

Non Profit

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

Sometimes, it's challenging to have relations with OpenText support.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

We use it in financial services companies to automate mobile solutions and applications.

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 67% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 19% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 13% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Perfecto vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 24% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 18% of the time

BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 17% of the time

Appium vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 16% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 14% of the time

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

April 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT Digital Lab product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

Overview

CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.

SmartBear

Our enterprise-level solution is a complete, centralized lab of real mobile devices and emulators. With remote access, developers and testers can develop, debug, test, monitor, and optimize mobile apps from anywhere.

OpenText

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab

March 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.